The Many Faces of US Politics...

[give her dixie]

US war crimes in Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXN3H3BPQU

[Maiden1]

Got this email this morning and thought I'd share it;
                                                                      Divorce agreement

            Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

            We have stuck together since the late 1950's or the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

            Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

            Here is a model separation agreement:

            Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

            We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.  We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.  You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

            We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

            You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

            We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

            We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

            You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.  We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

            We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

     

        Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. 

        Would you agree to this?  If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

        Sincerely,
        John J. Wall
        Law Student and an American

        P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

        P. S. S.  And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

You are a scary individual.

That e-mail sums up how morally bankrupt the republican philosophy is.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street
We'll keep the Bibles
we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
We'll practice trickle down economics.

What you are pretty much saying is we (the rich, elite, morally upstanding members of the community) will keep hold of Walmart and Waitrose, 'the greedy corporations' and make billions every year and we don't want to pay tax on these profits, the ordinary people will get a trickle down effect from all our wealth by working in our stores for the minimum wage but won't be able to afford to go to the hospital if e.g. you are a young mother and were to find you had a lump on your breast.

[dec]

            We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

The poor fool who wrote this probably doesn't even realise that Wall Street is in blue state New York. And that most of the headquarters of major corporations are in blue states. And that most of the high tech innovation comes from blue states. And that most of the red states that would end up in this Redneckistan are net beneficiaries from the federal government (more federal spending from the government than taxes to the government) whereas the Democrat voting states are net contributors.

[give her dixie]

Your Tax Dollars at War:
More Than 53% of Your Tax Payment Goes to the Military

By Dave Lindorff'

If you're like me, now that we're in the week that federal income taxes are due, you are finally starting to collect your records and prepare for the ordeal. Either way, whether you are a procrastinator like me, or have already finished and know how much you have paid to the government, it is a good time to stop and consider how much of your money goes to pay for our bloated and largely useless and pointless military.

The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which has to be voted by Congress by this Oct. 1, looks to be about $3 trillion, not counting the funds collected for Social Security (since the Vietnam War, the government has included the Social Security Trust Fund in the budget as a way to make the cost of America's imperial military adventures seem smaller in comparison to the total cost of government). Meanwhile, the military share of the budget works out to about $1.6 trillion.

That figure includes the Pentagon budget request of $717 billion, plus an estimated $200 billion in supplemental funding (called "overseas contingency funding" in euphemistic White House-speak), to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some $40 billion or more in "black box" intelligence agency funding, $94 billion in non-DOD military spending (that would include stuff like military activies funded through NASA, military spending by the State Department, etc., miilitary-related activities within the Dept. of Homeland Security, etc.), $123 billion in veterans benefits and health care spending, and $400 billion in interest on debt raised to pay for prior wars and the standing military during peacetime (whatever that is!).

The 2011 military budget, by the way, is the largest in history, not just in actual dollars, but in inflation-adjusted dollars, exceeding even the spending in World War II, when the nation was on an all-out war footing.

This military spending in all its myriad forms works out to represent 53% of total US federal spending.

It's also a military budget that is rising at a faster pace than any other part of the budget (with the possible exception of bailing out crooked Wall Street financial firms and their managers). For the past decade, and continuing under the present administration, military budgets have been rising at a 9% annual clip, making health care inflation look tiny by comparison.

US military spending isn't just half of the US budget, though. It is also half of the entire global spending on war and weaponry. In 2009, according to the venerable War Resisters League, US military spending accounted for 47% of all money spent globally on war, weapons and military preparedness (it's probably closer to 50% now). What makes that staggering figure particularly ridiculous is that America's allies--countries like France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan--account for another 21% of the world's military spending. Fully 12 of the top-spenders among big military-spending nations are either allies of the US, or are friendly or completely non-threatening countries like Brazil and India. That is to say, America and its friends and allies account for more than two-thirds of all military spending worldwide.

China, in contrast, probably the closest thing to a real "threat" to American interests because of America's treaty commitments to the island nation of Taiwan, and China's counter claim that the island is a part of the PRC, spends only some $130 billion on its military, much of which is actually devoted to maintaining military control over the country's own 1.3 billion people, some of whom might prefer to be independent, or to be freer, if they weren't under the military jack-boot.

The next biggest military spender, Russia, spends less than $80 billion a year on its decrepit military--about one-twentieth of what the US spends--and isn't even technically an enemy of the America anymore. Its military is largely busy keeping restive regions from spinning off from the mother country, anyhow.

Meanwhile Iran, which the White House and Congress are portraying as America's arch enemy, despite its not having invaded another country in hundreds of years, isn't even on the list of the top 17 military big-spenders. Iran's current military budget is a teensy $4.8 billion (no surprise since its economy is about equal to Finland's), about the same as the estimated $5 billion spent on the military by North Korea--America's other "major enemy." Each of those country's military budgets is about one-quarter of the military budget of Australia. Combined, they add up to about two thirds of the military budget of the Netherlands.

Just to give one an idea of how small $4.8 billion is in comparison to the $1.6 trillion that the US is spending each year on war and planning for war, that number is roughly what the Pentagon plans to spend over the next year on childcare and youth programs, morale and recreation programs and commissaries on its bases! It's about what the Pentagon will spend acquiring replacement Seahawk, Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters this year.

For the average American, what all this means is that of every dollar you send to the IRS, 53 cents will be going to pay for blowing stuff up, fattening the wallets of colonels admirals and generals, bloating the portfolios of investors in military industries, and of course funding the bonuses paid to executives of those companies, and the campaign chests and private expense accounts of the members of Congress who vote for these outlandish budgets. Your money will also be going to pay for the salaries and the bullets of those brave heroes over in Afghanistan who are executing kids, killing pregnant women (and then digging out the bullets and claiming they were stabbed by their families), and for the anti-personnel weapons that are creating legions of legless Afghani kids.

Next time you hear that the government needs to cut funds for providing medical care to the children of laid-off workers, or that supplemental unemployment funds are running out, next time you hear that federal funds that are needed to fund extra teachers at your school are being cut, or that Social Security benefits need to be cut back, or the retirement age needs to be increased to 70, next time you hear that your local post office has to be shut down for lack of funds, next time you hear that Medicare benefits need to be reduced, think about that 53% of your tax payment that is going to finance the most enormous war machine the world has ever known.

And ask yourself: Is this really necessary? Is this really where I want my money going? Is this really even making me safer or my country stronger?

[tyssam5]

Did my taxes yesterday. Biggest refund ever. And there was me worried that the commie ba$tid Obama would keep it all to fund his death camps.

[heganboy]

tyrone's own- if that were the terms of the divorce agreement I'd still take them.

I'm assuming we get the african americans- the immigrants, silicon valley, the garden state, the wine and beer of oregon, washington and california, you can have DC and the military budget- keep all the corn thanks. we'll keep the good schools, the co-ops, health care, the jobs, the creativity, the entrepreneurs, and it'll all be fine until we beat you in every sport and then you'll invade because our energy costs nothing because we aren't getting green technology squashed by your fat cats and you're running out of oil from your hot hockey mom's home state. And our heath care costs will be way lower because you won't be able to sue our providers and big pharma won't rape us for their profit margins.
Looking forward to it, now what'll we do with the kids and the music collection?

[Hedley Lamarr]

Netanyahu must show sincerity on peace, says Clinton
By AGENCIES

Published: Apr 16, 2010 20:34 Updated: Apr 16, 2010 20:34

WASHINGTON: Frustrated by more than a year of intense but failed diplomatic efforts to get Israel and the Palestinians to restart stalled peace negotiations, the Obama administration is turning up pressure on Israel to resume peace talks with Palestinians.

In a speech marking the opening a new Middle East think tank Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Thursday on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to prove his commitment to a Palestinian state, warning that prolonged conflict only strengthened extremists.

Speaking at a dinner attended by the ambassadors of Israel and several Arab states, Clinton was forthright in her demands of Netanyahu, urging Israel to "refrain from unilateral statements and actions" that could undermine peace.

"Prime Minister Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution," Clinton said.

"But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere," she said.

"We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza."

On a visit to Israel last month, Vice President Joe Biden was said to have argued that Middle East peace would help improve the safety of the tens of thousands of US troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Biden's trip turned into a fiasco when Israeli officials announced plans to build 1,600 Jewish settlements in annexed East Jerusalem while he was still on the visit. Clinton later called the Israeli move "insulting."

The Obama administration has come under harsh attack by some of Israel's supporters in Washington, who say that the United States is putting the Jewish state at risk. Representative Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the House, said the White House "has applied a severe double standard that refuses to hold the Palestinians accountable for their many provocations."

"It makes one wonder — where the responsible adults are in the administration?" said Cantor, the only Jewish House member from the minority party.


Double standards indeed

[Hardy]

Good to see Obama turn the screw on the Israelis. It may not seem like much, but in diplomatic terms it's a major policy shift and we can assume the pressure behind closed doors is of a different order altogether to the public utterances. It's probably the one policy most likely to cause him to get a bullet, too. They're capable of anything.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Jordan's King Abdallah has recently disclosed that he believes an Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon conflict is "imminent."

The fact that Israeli authorities are handing out gas masks and have launched a media campaign stressing their importance lends credibility to the monarch's chilling prediction.

Israel fears peace more than war. The Arab peace proposal is still on offer until July this year while US President Barack Obama is said to be working on a new "road map." But there is one major obstacle: Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reluctantly pays lip service to the concept of a Palestinian state but, in reality, he isn't interested in exchanging occupied land for peace. And neither is he prepared to relinquish East Jerusalem to be the capital of a new Palestinian state.  It's a dangerous impasse that has frustrated Palestinian hopes to the extent some are calling for a third intifada, which would achieve nothing except bolstering the flagging Israeli narrative that Palestinians are "terrorists". 

If this slick-talking, uncompromising Zionist were to chance upon a genie-in-a-bottle, he would magic the Palestinians away. But since geniis are in short supply nowadays, he is intent on diminishing the Palestinian population with a military order declassifying Palestinians residents of the West Bank as infiltrators if they fail to produce valid permits. Those considered to be illegal residents will be criminalized and exposed to fines, imprisonment and deportation.

Once the Palestinian presence is suitably pruned, he would be amenable to a demilitarized noncontiguous Palestinian state that has no control over its borders, coastline or airspace; in other words, a sort of Greater Gaza where the population would exist or subsist according to an Israeli leader's whims.

Unfortunately for Netanyahu his game is up. President Obama sees through his foot-dragging and is piling on the pressure with an implicit threat of a US-imposed settlement. The US leader has made firm demands for Israel to cease expanding Jewish colonies on the West Bank, to end the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and to relax the blockade of Gaza. He has also included Israel in his calls for nuclear nations to sign-up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There are signs that this president is in no mood to shower Israel with unconditional love even if this means head-butting an Israel-subservient Congress.

Moreover, like his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama is in no hurry to bless an Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Such an unprecedented strain in US-Israeli relations is eroding Netanyahu's popularity at home and could lead to early elections.

Just a year ago, Israel could do no wrong in the eyes of the international community whereas now it can do little right. However, Israel would quickly be released from the doghouse if it were seen to be at war for its very survival. The US would be forced to back up its longtime ally, Middle East peace would be relegated to the backburner and dependent on the outcome of such a conflict, Netanyahu's approval rating would soar. There are certainly indicators that such a devious plan without any regard for human life may be afoot.

In recent days, Israelis warplanes have violated Lebanon's airspace and have illuminated the skies over a southern Lebanese village with flares. Concurrent with those provocations, Israel is accusing Syria of supplying Hezbollah with Scud missiles with the potential of being fitted with chemical warheads and capable of reaching Tel Aviv.

Damascus denies this claim and, for the moment, Washington is fence sitting. A State Department spokesman has confirmed that the US is "increasingly concerned about the sophisticated weaponry that is allegedly being transferred"; another official has doubted the veracity of the allegation.

Whether or not Hezbollah is armed with Scuds isn't an issue when the organization's leader Hassan Nasrallah has admitted that his military wing has 30,000 missiles with enough range to damage any city within the Jewish state. Ali Fayyad, a pro-Hezbollah Lebanese MP has protested that "the Israeli enemy is going too far with its aggressive and provocative acts" and has asked the Lebanese government to file a complaint with the United Nations Security Council.

It's unlikely that Hezbollah will easily take the bait when it came under heavy internal criticism for triggering the 2006 war with its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as bargaining chips for prisoner releases. Conflict would not be in the interest of Lebanon which is enjoying renewed economic stability and neither would it benefit Hezbollah, which has an influential presence within the Lebanese government and whose military worth is already proven. But if Israel's provocation becomes too intense, then Nasrallah may be forced to respond. Alternatively, Israel could ignite hostilities with a false-flag operation that would paint Hezbollah as the belligerent party.

Netanyahu's possible motives for attacking Lebanon are manifold. Following the failure of the Israeli military's mission in 2006 which was to disarm Hezbollah, Israel needs a definitive win so as to propagate the myth of its invincibility and permanently eradicate the threat from Hezbollah on its northern border.

Secondly, if Israel intends to strike Iran, it would make sense to hobble Tehran's ally Hezbollah - and possibly Syria - beforehand. According to The Times, Syria is to be held responsible in the event Hezbollah sends ballistic missiles into Israel. "We'll return Syria to the Stone Age," an Israeli minister was quoted as warning.

Alternatively, an attack on Lebanon could potentially draw Iran into the fight, which would play right into Netanyahu's hands by dragging the US into the fray. If that is the plan it could result in a frightening scenario. Netanyahu will be out to win at all costs. There will be no hand-to-hand fighting this time. He will use any legal or illegal weapons at his disposal to produce massive devastation on the pretext that his country's very existence is in the balance. He will be obliged to launch crippling attacks without warning to limit retaliation bearing in mind Israel's vulnerability as a one-bomb state.

Obama needs to read the tealeaves and nip Israel's aggression in the bud while Arab states must find a united voice and a unity of purpose before the rabid dogs are once again unleashed leaving death and destruction in their wake.

[give her dixie]

What do you think is going to happen when this flotilla heads for Gaza?

Following months of preparation, a coalition bringing together a number of organizations and movements working to break Israel's blockade on Gaza was announced on Saturday in Istanbul, a statement read.

The coalition, comprised of the Turkey-based Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH) organization, the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG), the Greek Ship to Gaza campaign, the Swedish Ship to Gaza campaign and the Free Gaza Movement, will launch a flotilla of ships laden with cargo, media, parliamentarians, celebrities and activists to Gaza next month.

The flotilla includes at least eight vessels, including three cargo ships, and will set sail from European ports beginning 3 May, reaching the port of Gaza later in the month. Over 500 passengers from more than 20 countries will take part, and 5,000 tons of cargo, including cement, prefabricated housing, other building materials, medical equipment, and educational supplies will be delivered to Palestinians in Gaza.

The Free Gaza Movement has been launching ships to Gaza since August 2008, partnering with organizations and activists around the world. In December 2009, IHH led a land convoy to Gaza that brought tons of humanitarian aid and other supplies.

In January 2010 the European Campaign brought 50 parliamentarians to Gaza in solidarity with the Palestinian people and to witness the devastation wrought by Israel's illegal policies. Ship to Gaza/Greece and Ship to Gaza/Sweden meanwhile have had ongoing campaigns in their countries to raise awareness and funds for this effort and for materials to be brought to Gaza.

"Through this coalition, these organizations will be able to maximize resources, experience and commitment to ending the illegal siege on Gaza. Even as Israel continues its daily persecution of Palestinians, we will use this action to wake the world's consciousness about the crimes committed against Palestinians," said IHH President Bulent Yildirim

[FL/MAYO]

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.  She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,

"Excuse me, can you help me?  I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."

"I am, "replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct.  But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost.  Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going.  You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

[Hedley Lamarr]

Obama pleads for bipartisan support on immigration

President Barack Obama speaks at Indian Hill Community College in Ottumwa, Iowa, on Tuesday. (EPA)

By JULIE PACE | AP

Published: Apr 28, 2010 19:55 Updated: Apr 28, 2010 23:46

OTTUMWA, Iowa: President Barack Obama on Tuesday warned of harassment against Hispanics under Arizona's tough new immigration law, saying such "poorly conceived" measures can be halted if the federal government fixes America's broken immigration system for good.

Obama pledged to bring his own party along, pleading with Republicans to join in as the only realistic hope to solve a politically volatile problem.

He offered a fresh, stern criticism of a new Arizona law that allows police to question anyone about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect they are in the country illegally. He said it targets people who look they like might be illegal immigrants.

"Now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed - that's something that could potentially happen," Obama said of the Arizona measure. "That's not the right way to go."

The Mexican government warned its citizens Tuesday to use extreme caution if visiting Arizona because of the tough new law.

Obama's comments came on the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were critical of Arizona's new law, and Holder said the federal government may challenge it. The president sought to step up Washington's will to get an immigration deal done.

"I will bring the majority of Democrats to the table in getting this done," Obama said in response to a question at a town hall in south-central Iowa. "But I've got to have some help from the other side."

Obama said he hoped to get a deal done "sometime soon" - a politically vague timetable in an election year with a shrinking window for legislative action.

Starting a two-day, three-state Midwestern trip, Obama's broader message was about economic revival. Back in Iowa, the state that jump-started his White House bid, Obama sought to reassure wary Iowa voters with a message he hopes will resonate in the fall elections: The economic recovery hasn't reached everyone, but progress is being made. He's not on the ballot this year, but his party's control of Congress is at stake, along with dozens of governors' seats and state legislatures.

On immigration, Obama said he wants a federal law that would secure the borders and require illegal immigrants to register, pay a fine, learn English, take responsibility for having broken the law and get in the back of the line before others who are seeking US citizenship.

He said if all of those challenges are handled in one comprehensive measure, then "we can once again be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants." He said Arizona's law is poorly conceived, but it is equally unfair for the state to have to deal with hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.

In Washington, Napolitano also voiced reservations about the new state law, saying it could siphon federal money and staff from hunting down dangerous immigrants. Napolitano, a Democrat, was Arizona's governor before taking her Homeland Security job in Obama's Cabinet.

The critical comments by the nation's top law enforcement official and the Cabinet secretary responsible for enforcing immigration laws came four days after Napolitano's Republican successor in Phoenix signed a law designed to crack down on illegal aliens.

Authorities in suburban Chicago said 24 immigration reform protesters were arrested and cited for disorderly conduct after sitting on a street to block a van carrying detainees from a federal detention center.

The activists say they're tired of waiting for Obama to make good on his vow for immigration reform and are shifting their tactics, including more civil disobedience at May 1 immigrant rights rallies.

[Hedley Lamarr]

NAZARABAD, Afghanistan: US troops raided the home of a female member of the Afghan parliament and killed a neighbor who was one of her relatives, the MP said on Thursday, an incident that sparked angry protests in the east.

A spokesman for foreign forces in Afghanistan said Western and Afghan troops had raided a house in the area and shot dead an armed man but was not able to comment on whether the house belonged to a member of parliament.

Night-time raids by Western troops and civilian casualties are among the most incendiary issues in Afghanistan, and the targeting of a female parliamentarian would raise the political temperature at a time when NATO is preparing a large offensive.

Safia Sediqi, an outspoken member of parliament from eastern Nangarhar province, said scores of US soldiers raided her village home shortly before midnight.

Inside the house, they broke furniture and tied up family members, including her brother, for hours, she said. Outside, they shot dead a neighbor, who was also a relative by marriage.

"I will raise my voice. I am a member of parliament, my residence must be protected," Sediqi told Reuters. "This man had five children. The Americans have created five more enemies." She said she had phoned Afghan authorities from inside the house during the raid to try to have it stopped, but the US troops had the compound surrounded and did not let Afghan forces interfere.

Master Sergeant Jeff Loftin, a spokesman for the US-led NATO military force, said a team of Western and Afghan troops had carried out the raid because of intelligence reports of insurgent activity there. They shot dead an armed man who ignored commands through an interpreter to lower his weapon, he said.

The International Security Assistance Force said in a statement it and Afghan forces were reviewing the operation.

Scores of angry residents brought the dead man's body to a main road on Thursday, chanting anti-American and anti-government slogans. They said they would not bury the body until they received a proper explanation of how he was killed.

The commander of US and NATO forces, General Stanley McChrystal, has tried to place limits on night raids, a tactic he says is sometimes necessary to pursue insurgents but can also set back the overall strategy of winning public support.

Under McChrystal's guidance, night raids should be carried out only as a last resort and with the participation of Afghan forces. He has however refused repeated requests by President Hamid Karzai to ban night raids altogether.

Ghafoor Khan, provincial police spokesman, said the operation had not been coordinated with Afghan security forces.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Poor Mexico and the wicked Americans
THE president of Mexico was furious. "Criminalizing immigration, which is a social and economic phenomena, opens the door to intolerance, hate, and discrimination," Felipe Calderon told a meeting of Mexican immigrant groups. The state of Arizona had gone too far.

Jose Miguel Insulza, the head of the Organization of American States, was equally angry. "We consider the bill clearly discriminatory against immigrants, and especially against immigrants from Latin America," he told the Associated Press news agency. His point seemed to be that by treating illegal Mexican immigrants as a police matter, the new Arizona law is attacking their human rights.

The new law that is causing such outrage requires Arizona police to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they are there illegally. Day laborers face arrest for soliciting work if they are in the US illegally, and police departments can be sued if they fail to enforce the law. Illegal immigrants will face jail sentences of up to six months and fines of up to $2,500 before being expelled from the United States.

Harsh measures, certainly, but suppose I went to Mexico as a tourist and then stayed there illegally, taking work that might otherwise have gone to some deserving Mexican citizen. That does not figure prominently in my current plans, but if I did it, I would not be treated more gently by the Mexican authorities. Why does Mexico believe that its own citizens who are illegally in the United States deserve better treatment?

The flow of illegal migrants to the United States is important for Mexico. It provides a vital safety valve for the Mexican state, which would otherwise face the discontent of millions of Mexicans who cannot find decent jobs at home, and their remittances are a great help to the Mexican balance of payments. But the widely held Mexican belief that illegal immigrants have RIGHTS in the United States is most peculiar.

It arises from the fact that for a long time the United States has deliberately kept the border with Mexico porous, so that large numbers of Mexican illegals can enter the United States to provide cheap stoop labor for American agribusiness. In the cities along the American side of the frontier the border defenses are quite impressive, but out in the desert they are frequently no more than three strands of barbed wire and a dirt patrol track.

Out in the desert, of course, some hundreds of the Mexican border-crossers get lost and die of thirst each year, but that is necessary in order to maintain the fiction that the United States is doing all it can to stop the flow. It is also assumed that most of the illegals will go home again after the harvest, but of course each year some choose to stay permanently.

Each year the number of permanently resident illegal immigrants grows: Even in Arizona, where there is not a huge demand for agricultural labor, there are now an estimated 460,000 illegal Mexican immigrants. That is about 7 percent of Arizona's total population. Some argue that they are doing jobs nobody else wants, but that is only a possible reason for letting them stay. It certainly does not give them the right to stay.

Yet the Mexican government reacts with outraged indignation whenever the US government, or in this case an American state, talks about enforcing the law against illegal immigrants. It has come to think of the nod-and-a-wink arrangement that allows large numbers of illegal immigrants to cross the border each year as the natural state of things.

Arizona is calling time on that system, and actually intends to seek out and send home people who are in the state illegally. In most parts of the world, that would not be regarded as unreasonable. What is different in Arizona's case?

The implicit charge is racism. The assumption is that American citizens of Mexican origin, and legitimate Mexican visitors, will also be stopped and asked to prove that they are legally in the United States — and that they will be chosen for questioning on the grounds that they simply look "Mexican".

President Calderon himself would never be inconvenienced by such a policy, because he does not look "Mexican". He looks like your average white American, as does a large majority of the Mexican upper class. But it is true that most poorer Mexicans, including both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States, are mestizos of mixed white and Indian ancestry.

They look "Mexican", in other words, and the concern is that they will face constant demands from the police to prove they are legally in the United States. But the solution for this is simple. Simply enforce the same rules that apply in airport security queues to ensure that nobody feels they are being "profiled" because of their ethnicity.

In the airports, they make sure that heavily bearded young men who look "Middle Eastern" face no greater risk of being selected for special examination than paraplegic grandmothers. The Arizona police should be instructed to stop 13 white, black and Asian people and check that they are legally in the state for every person they stop who looks "Mexican".

Then nobody will have anything to complain about.

[heganboy]

for the record Hedley's comment is actually a quote taken from the Salt Lake Tribune as an opinion piece...